Many of your articles are about how we are far ahead of IPCC projections on emissions reductions, but then this is about how we’re impossibly far behind on trying to achieve net zero. Could you explain? I’m sure it’s not actually a contradiction but it kind of feels like one based on the public debate
With all due respect, Roger, from a fellow atmospheric scientist, what is the point of writing "requires the deployment of 1 nuclear power plant equivalent of carbon-free energy per day for decades to come"? I expect this from the more rabid unscientific greens but not from you. Especially given the commitment of China and India to increasing their coal use for decades into the future. Can't we move beyond pointless discussions of the kind you just published and address the realities of evolving energy usage globally, and what it implies for global GHG emissions going forward?
Can you also please write a piece addressing the energy poverty being created in Europe currently, and provide perspective about the draconian measures being forced on lower and middle class citizens and businesses in countries like the Netherlands, parts of Australia and Canada, and many other countries in the west that each account for 0.5-1% or less of global emissions, while China, India and Russia are collectively approaching 50% of total global emissions and two thirds of global coal burning? You would be doing a service to policy makers and the MSM by providing such much needed perspective.
I do appreciate your efforts to bring science and rationality to important climate issues. This article is a rare "miss". Cheers, Arthur
Based on your writing here and elsewhere, as well as that of Mark Mills at the Manhattan Institute, I am convinced that the notion of a Net Zero target being achieved any time in the next century is absurd. Setting impossible goals as a basis for policy making is not productive and it it is not based on anything approaching sound science. Scaring people into thinking that we must achieve Net Zero by 2030 or 2050 to avoid climate catastrophe and the end of the human race as we know it today is the height of irresponsibility. Yet politicians worldwide seem to be heading down this garden path.
In the USA the Democrat Party driven by poorly informed, pedantic, self absorbed, histrionic progressives is in the midst of destroying a presidency and perhaps a Party in order to push unachievable goals that are not grounded in reality. They are being assisted in this by dysfunctional universities, politically driven professional societies and a media staffed by graduates of our dysfunctional universities.
We need a change. Unless folks like you (an avowed Democrat/Progressive) can affect change on the left it's time to let the other party take a wack at it.
The information in this post is very helpful. It grounds the discussion of plans for the future in specific facts about the recent past that are relevant to estimating what might happen moving forward.
Many of your articles are about how we are far ahead of IPCC projections on emissions reductions, but then this is about how we’re impossibly far behind on trying to achieve net zero. Could you explain? I’m sure it’s not actually a contradiction but it kind of feels like one based on the public debate
Roger, I hope that you are getting as much from your interacting here as I am.
By the way I am now a paying subscriber.
Why would we want net zero carbon? that would be economic suicide. Petroleum based products are vital to the economy.
With all due respect, Roger, from a fellow atmospheric scientist, what is the point of writing "requires the deployment of 1 nuclear power plant equivalent of carbon-free energy per day for decades to come"? I expect this from the more rabid unscientific greens but not from you. Especially given the commitment of China and India to increasing their coal use for decades into the future. Can't we move beyond pointless discussions of the kind you just published and address the realities of evolving energy usage globally, and what it implies for global GHG emissions going forward?
Can you also please write a piece addressing the energy poverty being created in Europe currently, and provide perspective about the draconian measures being forced on lower and middle class citizens and businesses in countries like the Netherlands, parts of Australia and Canada, and many other countries in the west that each account for 0.5-1% or less of global emissions, while China, India and Russia are collectively approaching 50% of total global emissions and two thirds of global coal burning? You would be doing a service to policy makers and the MSM by providing such much needed perspective.
I do appreciate your efforts to bring science and rationality to important climate issues. This article is a rare "miss". Cheers, Arthur
Based on your writing here and elsewhere, as well as that of Mark Mills at the Manhattan Institute, I am convinced that the notion of a Net Zero target being achieved any time in the next century is absurd. Setting impossible goals as a basis for policy making is not productive and it it is not based on anything approaching sound science. Scaring people into thinking that we must achieve Net Zero by 2030 or 2050 to avoid climate catastrophe and the end of the human race as we know it today is the height of irresponsibility. Yet politicians worldwide seem to be heading down this garden path.
In the USA the Democrat Party driven by poorly informed, pedantic, self absorbed, histrionic progressives is in the midst of destroying a presidency and perhaps a Party in order to push unachievable goals that are not grounded in reality. They are being assisted in this by dysfunctional universities, politically driven professional societies and a media staffed by graduates of our dysfunctional universities.
We need a change. Unless folks like you (an avowed Democrat/Progressive) can affect change on the left it's time to let the other party take a wack at it.
The information in this post is very helpful. It grounds the discussion of plans for the future in specific facts about the recent past that are relevant to estimating what might happen moving forward.